Where Have Harman and Rockefeller been?
The Times revealed yesterday the CIA possessed and destroyed videotapes documenting their illegal torture of detainees and all of sudden Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is “really sick of this” and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) demands “this matter must be promptly and fully investigated.” Why didn’t these Highly Ethical Democratic Leaders get sick and demand an investigation when they first learned of the tapes and their destruction?
The Highly Ethical Democratic Leaders previously knew about the tapes but did nothing. Harman admitted knowing about the tapes In 2003 and allegedly was concerned they would be destroyed. Although Rockefeller did not specifically state he had knowledge of the tapes in 2003, at minimum he learned the tapes were destroyed in November 2006.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and one of only four members of Congress informed of the tapes’ existence, said she objected to the destruction when informed of it in 2003.
“I told the CIA that destroying videotapes of interrogations was a bad idea and urged them in writing not to do it,” Harman said. While key lawmakers were briefed on the CIA’s intention to destroy the tapes, they were not notified two years later when the spy agency went through with the plan. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the committee only learned of the tapes’ destruction in November 2006.
Since Rockefeller was the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003, it is hard to believe he was not one of the Members of Congress informed of their existence in 2003. In these statements, Rockefeller expresses concern that the tapes were destroyed without his prior knowledge or permission, but there is no denial he was not aware of their existence.
“They destroyed it without letting us know, without asking our permission, without consulting, without informing us in any way,” Rockefeller said. “They just did what the CIA likes to do.”
“…It’s a manipulation of the Congress — the use of two people of the Senate, two people out of the House, because nobody else can be told, including our committee. We can’t even talk to anybody, and they say, ‘Oh, they were briefed.’ ”
Of course there are laws prohibiting the release of classified information, which would amount to treason in certain cases, but surely there is a point when a Senator or Representative must adhere to their Oaths.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Where does it say these Highly Ethical Democratic Leaders must ignore their Oath when Dick Cheney, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence informs them of their illegal activities they have deemed classified for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from prosecution?
Update: Glenn Greenwald answering the question "what was Rockefeller and Harman supposed to do," gave this response.
There are countless mechanisms available to a U.S. Senator or Representative to do something about illegal behavior they discover. Anyone — not just someone in such a position — has mechanisms available to them under whistleblower laws to intiate proceedings to investigate illegal government conduct. Why couldn’t they have done that?
They could have also communicated much more aggressively within the government that unless the illegal behavior stopped, they would invoke those mechanisms. Why couldn’t they have done that?
They could also commence closed door investigations to exert oversight over these illegal intelligence activities. The whole point of the SECRET SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES is to enable Congress to exercise oversight even over the most secretive governmental conduct, precisely in order to prevent illegal behavior of this sort.
I’m amazed that there are people willing to depict Rockefeller and Harman as some sort of helpless victims who were unable to act. They could have taken numerous steps to impede, if not stop and expose, the criminal conduct of which they became aware. Yet they didn’t — not because they couldn’t, but because they didn’t want to.
Glenn has litigated constitutional law; therefore, his statements reflect an applicable professional basis rather than a layperson’s opinion.
0 Responses to “Where Have Harman and Rockefeller been?”